HB 375 revises Florida’s telephone solicitation law in section 501.059, Florida Statutes. The bill expands and clarifies the definition of “telephone solicitor” and “telephonic sales call” to expressly include text messages and voicemail transmissions used to solicit sales of consumer goods or services, or to obtain information for that purpose. It also keeps in place the existing exemption for tax-exempt nonprofit organizations acting for religious, charitable, political, or educational purposes.
The bill also changes the attorney-fee provisions in civil actions involving alleged violations of the telephone solicitation law. It revises when the prevailing party may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs, and in actions brought by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services or the Department of Legal Affairs, it authorizes fee awards only when the losing party lacked any justiciable issue or acted in bad faith. In addition, the bill states that these amendments are remedial and apply retroactively, and it reenacts a related securities statute so that its cross-reference to the telephone solicitation law remains current.
Impact
HB 375 would broaden the reach of Florida’s telemarketing and consumer-protection rules to cover modern communication methods such as text messaging and voicemail-based solicitations, not just traditional phone calls. That expansion affects businesses, marketers, and others who use consumer-facing outreach in Florida, while preserving the nonprofit exemption. The bill also alters litigation risk by changing fee-shifting rules in private and government-initiated enforcement actions under the statute, which could affect how telephone solicitation disputes are pursued and defended in court. The retroactive, remedial language suggests the Legislature intends the revised definitions and fee provisions to apply to existing disputes as well as future conduct.
Sentiment
With no committee transcripts or recorded votes available, the bill’s overall sentiment can only be inferred from its text. The measure appears generally pro-consumer and enforcement-oriented, because it updates the statute to address text and voicemail solicitations and strengthens the framework for civil enforcement. At the same time, the inclusion of a nonprofit exemption and the narrowing of fee awards in government-initiated cases suggest an effort to balance consumer protection with protections for certain speakers and against overly aggressive litigation.
Contention
The main points of contention likely involve the scope of the expanded definition of telephonic sales calls and the retroactive application of the changes. Businesses that rely on text marketing, automated outreach, or voicemail campaigns may view the bill as increasing compliance burdens and litigation exposure, while consumer advocates may support the broader coverage. Another possible point of debate is the attorney-fee language: limiting fee awards in state-initiated cases to situations involving no justiciable issue or bad faith may be seen by some as protecting defendants from unwarranted fee exposure, while others may argue it weakens deterrence or enforcement incentives. The nonprofit exemption may also be a point of interest, though the bill preserves existing treatment rather than changing it.